I probably should have been more clear, from the perspective of 99.999% of consumers there is no difference when a conversion is done right (and it is shoot for 3d). This is why no one notices which scenes are converted and which scenes are not in films like Avatar and Transformers. Though I am sure there are a select few who can tell the difference (I would say they would have to work in the industry though and know what to look for and thus are semi-cheating).

The point is that you can add data that wasn't there, if you couldn't 3d conversions as they are currently done would not exist.

Of course you can add data, but its fake, its guessed. If the orginal camera didnt capture it then its not there, it needs to be generated, guessed based on the information that was captured.

If i take your picture from the front I dont know what is on the back of your t-shirt.

Of course you can add data, but its fake, its guessed. If the orginal camera didnt capture it then its not there, it needs to be generated, guessed based on the information that was captured.

Well, that may be the case sometimes, but not always. Especially with a movie like TPM, and the other SW prequels; they had very accurate measurements of everything that was being filmed and where things were in relation to one another, because that information was - at the time - going to be used to work on the CG effects. And GL could very easily ask the people who'd worked in the films originally to come back and make sure all the information that was needed for the conversion was available for the external company that did the conversion.

And so I would imagine that in a lot of movies where they know ahead of time that it's not being filmed in 3-D but it is almost sure to be converted in post-production, they also document everything in the set to make sure there is plenty of reference information for whomever does the 3-D conversion - you might even have the people who will be doing the 3-D conversion visiting the set occasionally, I guess.

In many cases, adding stuff with CG to provide information that wasn't there when the cameras were rolling is no different than simply doing CG effects in a normal movie that's not going to be converted. It just amounts to adding more digital stuff in post-production because not everything was there in front of the camera when they filmed the live actors.

In many cases, adding stuff with CG to provide information that wasn't there when the cameras were rolling is no different than simply doing CG effects in a normal movie that's not going to be converted. It just amounts to adding more digital stuff in post-production because not everything was there in front of the camera when they filmed the live actors.

Well said.

I'm not sure why they're releasing John Carter 3D, a reportedly 250$ million dollar movie during a slow going movie season like March. I would've waited till May at least, but they might have felt that time was too crowded. Then again, December isn't a big box office season in general either, mostly May, June, July, August from what I've seen over the years...With some exceptions.

I'm not sure why they're releasing John Carter 3D, a reportedly 250$ million dollar movie during a slow going movie season like March. I would've waited till May at least, but they might have felt that time was too crowded. Then again, December isn't a big box office season in general either, mostly May, June, July, August from what I've seen over the years...With some exceptions.

It would have gotten creamed if it released in May alongside the Avengers, so I'm glad Disney didn't go there. Though it is surprising to me they didn't go early April.

Sure Wrath of the Titans debuts at the end of March, but you would think they could of squeezed the release for John Carter a little bit after Wrath. Oh well. Hopefully word of mouth is really strong on John Carter( as well as Wrath also lol. I'm personally rooting for that movie too. It's looks epic!)

Well, that may be the case sometimes, but not always. Especially with a movie like TPM, and the other SW prequels; they had very accurate measurements of everything that was being filmed and where things were in relation to one another, because that information was - at the time - going to be used to work on the CG effects. And GL could very easily ask the people who'd worked in the films originally to come back and make sure all the information that was needed for the conversion was available for the external company that did the conversion.

And so I would imagine that in a lot of movies where they know ahead of time that it's not being filmed in 3-D but it is almost sure to be converted in post-production, they also document everything in the set to make sure there is plenty of reference information for whomever does the 3-D conversion - you might even have the people who will be doing the 3-D conversion visiting the set occasionally, I guess.

In many cases, adding stuff with CG to provide information that wasn't there when the cameras were rolling is no different than simply doing CG effects in a normal movie that's not going to be converted. It just amounts to adding more digital stuff in post-production because not everything was there in front of the camera when they filmed the live actors.

Ill conceed that point, cgi is generated anyway, yeah, but for scenes of live action etc where they didnt capture everything, you can just guess when adding it in.

I find it funny the discussion my points raised but no one bothered to answer my questions relating to it. and i'm still waiting for someone to tell me which scenes in Avatar where converted without checking.

You can talk all you want about how the information wasn't there originally when converting, but as we where not there we have no way of knowing whether the added data is true to what was there (and nor does it matter as films are constantly tweaked to add and remove picture information) it is completely irrelevant.

2d to 3d conversions (when framed for 3d) can be as good as when shooting natively in 3d. You don't have to like it, and there are a plethora of issues that can arise (rushed conversions) which have me prefer a film shoot natively in 3d, but anyone here who thinks they can tell the difference when it is done right is suffering from the placebo effect.

I find it funny the discussion my points raised but no one bothered to answer my questions relating to it. and i'm still waiting for someone to tell me which scenes in Avatar where converted without checking.

You can talk all you want about how the information wasn't there originally when converting, but as we where not there we have no way of knowing whether the added data is true to what was there (and nor does it matter as films are constantly tweaked to add and remove picture information) it is completely irrelevant.

2d to 3d conversions (when framed for 3d) can be as good as when shooting natively in 3d. You don't have to like it, and there are a plethora of issues that can arise (rushed conversions) which have me prefer a film shoot natively in 3d, but anyone here who thinks they can tell the difference when it is done right is suffering from the placebo effect.

Hmm... wouldn't you have a better chance in finding your answer from the "Avatar" thread? Would seem logical to me to search the Avatar thread rather than the John Carter 3D thread. Just a thought...

Ze Doctor. You suggest 99% of 3D viewers can't notice which shots in a movie were converted to 3D from 2D, compared to those that were filmed in 3D. I'm going to agree. If the 3D is strong enough and it's well done without errors/cardboard cut outs, I can't tell either way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mseeley

It would have gotten creamed if it released in May alongside the Avengers, so I'm glad Disney didn't go there. Though it is surprising to me they didn't go early April.

Sure Wrath of the Titans debuts at the end of March, but you would think they could of squeezed the release for John Carter a little bit after Wrath. Oh well. Hopefully word of mouth is really strong on John Carter( as well as Wrath also lol. I'm personally rooting for that movie too. It's looks epic!)

April would've been nice, but not sure yet what's in theaters for April. Avengers is big competition along with Wrath, agreed. Will see all three of these. John Carter this Friday, March 9, 2012 in theaters. I hope the movie is as good as the 3D looked. The writer or director gives me hope if he's worked on the Pixar movies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UFAlien

It seems all the people I talk to irl about John Carter know about it but aren't interested in seeing it. And BoxOfficeMojo isn't terribly optimistic about its chances.

That's how it was when I asked people if they were going to see Tron Legacy December 2010, which I was also interested in seeing. Everyone I asked had no interest. Of course that didn't stop it from raking it in at the world wide box office:
Total Lifetime Grosses Tron Legacy (boxofficemojo.com)
Domestic: $172,062,763 43.0%
+ Foreign: $228,000,000 57.0%
= Worldwide: $400,062,763

Had the 3D not looked as great as it did in the preview for John Carter 3D, I might have thought twice about seeing this one, as Disney has not yet clearly showed us the main antagonist, who is the main reason the hero has to undergo all these trials in the first place... Without a villain to represent the film, how can Disney expect to spark more interest in those on the fence, I wonder... Maybe Disney has their reasons.
All I know about the story so far, is that John Carter is fighting on the side of the aliens. Why, I have no idea based on the preview trailers... I hope they release another trailer on TV to give us a better idea (HINT: DISNEY if you're reading this thread).

For anyone here, have you seen the main villain yet? I don't mean to make a big deal of it, but it actually is a big deal for a good movie. Again, imagine if Darth Vader never showed up in Star Wars, or the evil green Witch never bothered appearing in The Wizard of Oz? I'll wait till Friday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvl

Don't know about that... the previews seem to be pretty good to me. I plan on going to see it nxt wknd.

The 3D looks excellent. I like the special effects. Hopefully the story delivers.

For anyone here, have you seen the main villain yet? I don't mean to make a big deal of it, but it actually is a big deal for a good movie. Again, imagine if Darth Vader never showed up in Star Wars, or the evil green Witch never bothered appearing in The Wizard of Oz? I'll wait till Friday.

The 3D looks excellent. I like the special effects. Hopefully the story delivers.

Caught an early screening of JOHN CARTER last week. I can tell you that it is incredibly well made despite the fact that it has one of the worst ad campaigns I've ever seen. Having said that, they've been wise not to point the finger at who exactly the villain is in the advertising because there is more than one. Dominic West is Sab Than, the primary villain. He's just okay, but in the end a bad guy with another destructive weapon. Even James Purefoy who plays a minor good guy, could have played his role. The real villain is the always reliable Mark Strong as Matai Shang, the real puppeteer working the strings and manipulating the conflict in the film. What makes him quite interesting is that when he reveals his role in the grand scheme of things, it sets up potential storylines for the sequels, if they get the chance to make them.

As for the 3D, it's great at times, and others, just okay. I'm not passing final judgment until I see it in IMAX Digital. Some theaters have their 3D calibrated poorly, but at least with either IMAX format (film or digital) you know they strive for the best presentation possible. Wonderful film that you don't have to be familiar with the source material to enjoy and I can't wait to see again.

I'm looking forward to the inevitable 3D Blu-ray release as well. Hopefully it will street sometime in June or July, but don't be surprised if it's August either. Disney did that with MARS NEED MOMS which opened around the same time as JOHN CARTER last year. Granted that film was a box-office bomb, and I suspect JOHN CARTER will at least turn a decent profit if not a phenomenal one.

Ze Doctor. You suggest 99% of 3D viewers can't notice which shots in a movie were converted to 3D from 2D, compared to those that were filmed in 3D. I'm going to agree. If the 3D is strong enough and it's well done without errors/cardboard cut outs, I can't tell either way.

April would've been nice, but not sure yet what's in theaters for April. Avengers is big competition along with Wrath, agreed. Will see all three of these. John Carter this Friday, March 9, 2012 in theaters. I hope the movie is as good as the 3D looked. The writer or director gives me hope if he's worked on the Pixar movies.

That's how it was when I asked people if they were going to see Tron Legacy December 2010, which I was also interested in seeing. Everyone I asked had no interest. Of course that didn't stop it from raking it in at the world wide box office:
Total Lifetime Grosses Tron Legacy (boxofficemojo.com)
Domestic: $172,062,763 43.0%
+ Foreign: $228,000,000 57.0%
= Worldwide: $400,062,763

Had the 3D not looked as great as it did in the preview for John Carter 3D, I might have thought twice about seeing this one, as Disney has not yet clearly showed us the main antagonist, who is the main reason the hero has to undergo all these trials in the first place... Without a villain to represent the film, how can Disney expect to spark more interest in those on the fence, I wonder... Maybe Disney has their reasons.
All I know about the story so far, is that John Carter is fighting on the side of the aliens. Why, I have no idea based on the preview trailers... I hope they release another trailer on TV to give us a better idea (HINT: DISNEY if you're reading this thread).

For anyone here, have you seen the main villain yet? I don't mean to make a big deal of it, but it actually is a big deal for a good movie. Again, imagine if Darth Vader never showed up in Star Wars, or the evil green Witch never bothered appearing in The Wizard of Oz? I'll wait till Friday.

The 3D looks excellent. I like the special effects. Hopefully the story delivers.

I'm not very familliar with the books, but I believe that Carter finds himself in the middle of a Civil War. And he ends up finding good friends and terrible enemies amongst almost all the different Martian races.
I think there's also this idea of looks being deceiving, and Burroughs was one of those pulp writers who loved twists and cliffhangers.

So maybe Disney was being responsible and didn't want to spoil the plot? A little too responsible... since no one knows what this movie is about.

I've asked a few people. They've either not heard of it. Or they've seen the posters around town and just see it as "that movie with weird monsters in it"

No idea how he's in this strange world. Not aware that its one Mars.

My only friend who is considering watching it is going to watch it because Andrew Stanton is directing... which Disney has not made clear at all.

I convinced three people who never heard of it or thought it looked bad to consider watching it IMMEDIATELY after telling them that the guy who directed Wall-E and Finding Nemo.
Seriously, Finding Nemo is Pixar's biggest film that isn't Toy Story. It's a hit amongst entire families and all age groups. To many, it's the best Pixar film.
Wall-E is adored by Pixar fans who love artsier stories or science fiction. It appeals a lot to people who don't follow mainstream culture. To many, including myself, it deserved Best Picture.

... but instead of Disney isn't selling that to people. So John Carter is this expensive looking movie with no story and no one famous involved.

All Disney had to say was:
From the creators of TARZAN(Burroughs/Disney)
The Director of Wall-E and Finding Nemo
Written by Michael Chabon
JOHN CARTER ON MARS
BTW It has Bryan Cranston AND WILLEM DAFOE AS A GREEN ****ING ALIEN!!!!!

Caught an early screening of JOHN CARTER last week. I can tell you that it is incredibly well made despite the fact that it has one of the worst ad campaigns I've ever seen. Having said that, they've been wise not to point the finger at who exactly the villain is in the advertising because there is more than one. Dominic West is Sab Than, the primary villain. He's just okay, but in the end a bad guy with another destructive weapon. Even James Purefoy who plays a minor good guy, could have played his role. The real villain is the always reliable Mark Strong as Matai Shang, the real puppeteer working the strings and manipulating the conflict in the film. What makes him quite interesting is that when he reveals his role in the grand scheme of things, it sets up potential storylines for the sequels, if they get the chance to make them.

As for the 3D, it's great at times, and others, just okay. I'm not passing final judgment until I see it in IMAX Digital. Some theaters have their 3D calibrated poorly, but at least with either IMAX format (film or digital) you know they strive for the best presentation possible. Wonderful film that you don't have to be familiar with the source material to enjoy and I can't wait to see again.

I'm looking forward to the inevitable 3D Blu-ray release as well. Hopefully it will street sometime in June or July, but don't be surprised if it's August either. Disney did that with MARS NEED MOMS which opened around the same time as JOHN CARTER last year. Granted that film was a box-office bomb, and I suspect JOHN CARTER will at least turn a decent profit if not a phenomenal one.

I was reading that post and had to stop when I realized that it was a spoiler. I really hope it doesn't ruin the film for me now. Most likely not but still, like u said the trailer doesn't reveal it so...

I'm looking forward to the inevitable 3D Blu-ray release as well. Hopefully it will street sometime in June or July, but don't be surprised if it's August either. Disney did that with MARS NEED MOMS which opened around the same time as JOHN CARTER last year. Granted that film was a box-office bomb, and I suspect JOHN CARTER will at least turn a decent profit if not a phenomenal one.

Well, the French and German releases have preliminary release dates in July and August respectively, so I'd take a guess on July for the US.

I have my tickets for the Friday showing, but I'm surprised at how many seats are still left unbooked. When Avatar came everything was gone within hours for the first days, but here, there's still lots of seats left for the premiere and the tickets have been available for a couple of days now, which just tells me that that isn't a good sign and that Disney really dropped the ball with the marketing of this one...

I was reading that post and had to stop when I realized that it was a spoiler. I really hope it doesn't ruin the film for me now. Most likely not but still, like u said the trailer doesn't reveal it so...

What I described is pretty much revealed in the very first scene, but I apologize if I "spoiled" it for you.

Caught an early screening of JOHN CARTER last week. I can tell you that it is incredibly well made despite the fact that it has one of the worst ad campaigns I've ever seen. Having said that, they've been wise not to point the finger at who exactly the villain is in the advertising because there is more than one. //

As for the 3D, it's great at times, and others, just okay. I'm not passing final judgment until I see it in IMAX Digital. Some theaters have their 3D calibrated poorly, but at least with either IMAX format (film or digital) you know they strive for the best presentation possible. Wonderful film that you don't have to be familiar with the source material to enjoy and I can't wait to see again.

I'm looking forward to the inevitable 3D Blu-ray release as well. Hopefully it will street sometime in June or July, but don't be surprised if it's August either. Disney did that with MARS NEED MOMS which opened around the same time as JOHN CARTER last year. Granted that film was a box-office bomb, and I suspect JOHN CARTER will at least turn a decent profit if not a phenomenal one.

Information I have been waiting to hear, thanks! I was getting worried there really wasn't a strong villain to be found, but mostly just Carter fighting in an arena against furry monsters. I agree, I'm not sure why Disney is underplaying a potentially great movie by giving us no idea what it's really about. I hope it's not too late for them to crank up the marketing on TV during the next week with a trailer that actually reveals some strong villains. Thanks again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joenostalgia23

I'm not very familliar with the books, but I believe that Carter finds himself in the middle of a Civil War. And he ends up finding good friends and terrible enemies amongst almost all the different Martian races.//

So maybe Disney was being responsible and didn't want to spoil the plot? A little too responsible... since no one knows what this movie is about.//

My only friend who is considering watching it is going to watch it because Andrew Stanton is directing... which Disney has not made clear at all.//

I convinced three people who never heard of it or thought it looked bad to consider watching it IMMEDIATELY after telling them that the guy who directed Wall-E and Finding Nemo.//
... but instead of Disney isn't selling that to people. So John Carter is this expensive looking movie with no story and no one famous involved.

Well said. I feel the same way about Disney's misguided marketing on this movie. Whoever was in charge, better hope for great word of mouth considering the trailers give us very little story to grab hold of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GC Riot

Disney really dropped the ball with the marketing of this one...

Yes. They need to immediately release a trailer revealing some of the plot lines and/or the villains Carter has to overcome especially. Keeping things too secret isn't a good tactic when they give us mostly action sequence trailers with no idea of what the story is about. It's kind of like taking a movie like the Godfather, and in a trailer of the film, only showing the scenes where people are shooting at each other, completely avoiding the storyline.
There was a skit about re-editing movie trailers on either Mad TV or SNL years ago, so a comedy movie seemed like a serious drama based on what shots were revealed in the fake trailer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharkypuffs

What I described is pretty much revealed in the very first scene, but I apologize if I "spoiled" it for you.

Spoilers don't bother me personally, but I definitely am glad to hear there are worthy villains in John Carter.

Well I didn't know anything about the movie until seeing the trailer in 3D with my son and we looked at each other and both said "I have to see that one!" So for me and my son their marketing worked just fine

Well I didn't know anything about the movie until seeing the trailer in 3D with my son and we looked at each other and both said "I have to see that one!" So for me and my son their marketing worked just fine

Definitely go with your son, would make a great a family movie. As enjoyable as the star wars prequels imo.